Working When You Don't Need The $$$

[Kanastrous]

I'm not advancing a particular conclusion but instead am interested in seeing what perspectives people might have:

I have some sometimes-crew mates who are of course very, very good at their craft and make quite satisfactory money when we work on major feature projects. Thing is, these guys are from wealthy families, have substantial accounts filled with family $$$, and can basically afford to take off and travel, vacation, kick back, whatever, when and as they please.

Now, there are equally talented, equally skilled people out there who actually need the work in order to make their bills (like yours truly). And one could propose that every desk filled by a person who doesn't financially need the work is a missed opportunity for the skilled person who's not an heir, who *does* really need the work. On the other hand, I prefer not to contemplate a life without work, and hopefully satisfying work, and while some of my friends may not need to do the work in order to have sufficient money, I figure it's still a basic need to stave off ennui and decay.

So I'm curious as to what - if anything - others think. Would people with means gain ethical merit by leaving the field of employment to those who need the paychecks, or does a basic need for occupation and the performance of one's skills equal the mere lucre one takes home at the end of each week?

*edit* re-reading this I realized that maybe it comes off like I'm bitching that I'm losing work to the people I'm talking about. This is not the case; as mentioned these are the guys with whom I frequently work.

[General Zod]

This seems like an absurd argument. If there's a lot of competition for a job shouldn't the job go to the person who's the most skilled rather than the most needy? If two people really are equally talented then it should go to whoever gets there first, not some arbitrary definition of need.

[Sarevok]

Are you this is not something unique to hollywood ? I mean you work in a very prestigious field. No matter how well off someone's background is it is many peoples dream to participate in film making at some level.

If it were an IT company or a bank you would not see well connected and well off people voluntarily filling desks and cubicles. Not when they could be on a yacht somewhere and hold an upper echelon managerial or leadership position instead as their means of employment

[Kanastrous]

If there's a lot of competition for a job shouldn't the job go to the person who's the most skilled rather than the most needy? If two people really are equally talented then it should go to whoever gets there first, not some arbitrary definition of need.

There are more axes than technical competence or artistic ability along which you can gauge someone's competitiveness, though what actually bears on the question is that I'm not presenting this from the angle of who is more deserving to be hired but rather is it morally positive or neutral to compete for financial resources that you don't actually need?

I guess I had to have someone hit on a particular of the example, for me to realize what the basic question of principle is. And rather than leave the nature of the need as an arbitrary quality, let's posit reasonably real-world stuff like rent or mortgages to pay, children for whom to care, educational loans to repay, that sort of thing.

Are you this is not something unique to hollywood ? I mean you work in a very prestigious field. No matter how well off someone's background is it is many peoples dream to participate in film making at some level.

Maybe. I don't have sufficient experience in other trades, to be sure.

[General Zod]

There are more axes than technical competence or artistic ability along which you can gauge someone's competitiveness, though what actually bears on the question is that I'm not presenting this from the angle of who is more deserving to be hired but rather is it morally positive or neutral to compete for financial resources that you don't actually need?

I guess I had to have someone hit on a particular of the example, for me to realize what the basic question of principle is. And rather than leave the nature of the need as an arbitrary quality, let's posit reasonably real-world stuff like rent or mortgages to pay, children for whom to care, educational loans to repay, that sort of thing.

Where is the harm in someone working for pay if they don't have any significant financial burdens? It's not as if people are satisfied by just having their basic needs met and nothing more.

[Kanastrous]

If you'll look at the OP you'll see that I'm describing people whose resources go way past meeting basic needs.

Okay, an example: my friend, let's call him EF. Big-projects guy, we did Avatar and Battleship together, stuff like that. EF is an extremely technically skilled 3D modeler and has some degree of good design instinct too. He's a gourmand and a finer-things type and a globetrotting this-week-Phuket-next-week-Hong-Kong vintage-car-driving cherished son of a surreally wealthy Asian business family. He comes and goes as he pleases, has no dependents; in monetary terms he has no need, at all, to work.

Another example: my friend SX. Likewise, big-projects guy, extraordinarily well-educated, self-taught at that, outstanding craftsman with great designs sense, hobbyist, family man, meets the bills off what comes in as paychecks.

From the perspective of an employer, sure, I'm going to make my call based upon whatever combination of skills, creativity, personality and reliability suits my needs for the purpose of the work. That's easily settled. What I'm wondering about is the propriety of the worker who really has zero need for the paycheck competing against the worker for whom it's a pressing need.

[General Zod]

If you'll look at the OP you'll see that I'm describing people whose resources go way past meeting basic needs.

Okay, an example: my friend, let's call him EF. Big-projects guy, we did Avatar and Battleship together, stuff like that. EF is an extremely technically skilled 3D modeler and has some degree of good design instinct too. He's a gourmand and a finer-things type and a globetrotting this-week-Phuket-next-week-Hong-Kong vintage-car-driving cherished son of a surreally wealthy Asian business family. He comes and goes as he pleases, has no dependents; in monetary terms he has no need, at all, to work.

Another example: my friend SX. Likewise, big-projects guy, extraordinarily well-educated, self-taught at that, outstanding craftsman with great designs sense, hobbyist, family man, meets the bills off what comes in as paychecks.

From the perspective of an employer, sure, I'm going to make my call based upon whatever combination of skills, creativity, personality and reliability suits my needs for the purpose of the work. That's easily settled. What I'm wondering about is the propriety of the worker who really has zero need for the paycheck competing against the worker for whom it's a pressing need.

I'm still not seeing the harm here. By the reasoning I'm seeing we should feel bad whenever we land a job over someone that's worse off than ourselves financially. How is an applicant supposed to know the financial status of his competition? What if there's no other competition for a given job because the requirements are so specific?

[Kanastrous]

I tend to think of it as competing upon a field. It's true that for the larger proportion of competitors on the field, the earnings associated with the work are very necessary to their survival. And there's a smaller proportion of the competition for whom there's no basic financial incentive to compete; we're talking private-jet-traveler-wealthy, here. So is it morally positive to enter that competition when you are aware that you will be competing to secure earnings for which you have no need, against people for whom the earnings are a crucial need?

If there's no other competition, then of course we're not talking about the same subject with which I opened.

[Kanastrous]

I guess I should clarify that I don't mean some kind of Monetary Need Scale where Guy 'A' has a Need of 4.5 and Guy 'B' has a Need of 4.7.

I mean something like a Need Scale on which Guy 'A's Need is always exactly zero, regardless of the Need of any competitor. Does this imply any morally preferable course of action when it comes to the competition, for that zero-Need player?

[General Zod]

I mean something like a Need Scale on which Guy 'A's Need is always exactly zero, regardless of the Need of any competitor. Does this imply any morally preferably course of action when it comes to the competition, for that zero-Need player?

Unless they can somehow magically know the needs of their competition I don't see why there's any moral imperative on the part of an applicant. What if they volunteered their services simply because they want to do it instead of taking the paycheck, and the amount of available slots is still the same?

[Kanastrous]

Unless they can somehow magically know the needs of their competition I don't see why there's any moral imperative on the part of an applicant.

If we've established that one's Need is exactly zero, and if one is competing against other applicants, and if one knows that the majority of applicants' need is greater than zero, then I don't see why any magic is required to conclude that one is likely competing against others who need a paycheck that you don't. Remember, I'm talking about having no need at all for the money, which is a different matter than needing it a bit more or a bit less than someone else. Your need is defined as an absolute zero; there is no chance at all that you are competing against anyone who needs the check less than you do.

What if they volunteered their services simply because they want to do it instead of taking the paycheck, and the amount of available slots is still the same?

Cutting staff is a primary function of a good UPM. If you can fill a seat for free that doesn't mean that you necessarily use the $$$ to fill an additional seat. You congratulate yourself upon having saved the money, log it with Accounting, and look forward to seeing some of it in your bonus at project's end. The quantity of available slots doesn't stay the same; if desks can be filled free-of-charge by people who don't need the paycheck, the end result is still fewer opportunities for the people who do.

[General Zod]

If we've established that one's Need is exactly zero, and if one is competing against other applicants, and if one knows that the majority of applicants' need is greater than zero, then I don't see why any magic is required to conclude that one is likely competing against others who need a paycheck that you don't. Remember, I'm talking about having no need at all for the money, which is a different matter than needing it a bit more or a bit less than someone else. Your need is defined as an absolute zero; there is no chance at all that you are competing against anyone who needs the check less than you do.

Unless there's more than one applicant with a need of "zero", and a given job has no applicants with a need greater than "zero", which brings me back to the point that they have no way of knowing what their competition's financial needs are.

Cutting staff is a primary function of a good UPM. If you can fill a seat for free that doesn't mean that you necessarily use the $$$ to fill an additional seat. You congratulate yourself upon having saved the money, log it with Accounting, and look forward to seeing some of it in your bonus at project's end. The quantity of available slots doesn't stay the same; if desks can be filled free-of-charge by people who don't need the paycheck, the end result is still fewer opportunities for the people who do.

Should I assume that you're using the definition of "fewer available jobs" to quantify harm here, then? Because so far you haven't really done much to establish a meaningful definition.

[Batman]

I consider that moderately obvious from the OP alone, really. Somebody who couldn't care less about the paycheck filling a job that otherwise could have gone to someone who does automatically means one less job available to the people who DO need that paycheck.

[General Zod]

I consider that moderately obvious from the OP alone, really. Somebody who couldn't care less about the paycheck filling a job that otherwise could have gone to someone who does automatically means one less job available to the people who DO need that paycheck.

The problem is that it's a retarded definition because then my earlier point is applicable. By that logic anyone who fills a job when there's needier applicants than them is causing harm. Why is it suddenly harmful to take the job away just because the person who does so doesn't "really" need it? If you're not applying the definition to everyone that takes a job from someone who needs it more than frankly it's a piss poor definition.

[Batman]

It's called a hypothetical scenario. Nobody is asking what you would do in an honest-to-Valen actually happening job offer available situation with zero information on the competition. All Kanastrous is asking is should people who don't need the money take jobs that could otherwise go to people that do. It's not that hard to figure out.

[General Zod]

It's called a hypothetical scenario. Nobody is asking what you would do in an honest-to-Valen actually happening job offer available situation with zero information on the competition. All Kanastrous is asking is should people who don't need the money take jobs that could otherwise go to people that do. It's not that hard to figure out.

He's asking whether or not it's morally acceptable numbnuts. You can't say yes or no without having a consistent definition of why it's harmful to begin with and so far nobody's bothered to provide that.

[Batman]

Again, he did so with the very OP. The people who don't need the money are filling jobs that would otherwise have gone to people who DO.
Looks pretty damn simple to me.

[General Zod]

Again, he did so with the very OP. The people who don't need the money are filling jobs that would otherwise have gone to people who DO.
Looks pretty damn simple to me.

That's because you're an idiot, and if you use that definition my earlier point still applies. If it's unethical for a rich guy to take the job when he doesn't need it then it should be equally unethical for someone who does need it to take the job if someone who's worse off than them is also applying. If you're not going to bother explaining the difference then go away and let the adults talk.

[Stark]

Yeah, I don't 'need' my job the way an American homeless person does; I have a family, a partner, etc. Discriminating by means would probably lead to very low retention.

[Batman]

That's because you're an idiot, and if you use that definition my earlier point still applies. If it's unethical for a rich guy to take the job when he doesn't need it then it should be equally unethical for someone who does need it to take the job if someone who's worse off than them is also applying.

Yeah. Because there's totally no difference between somebody taking a job he doesn't need. At all. And somebody taking a job he does need, albeit maybe not quite as badly as the next guy.

If you're not going to bother explaining the difference then go away and let the adults talk.

Says the guy who obviously didn't understand the point of the scenario.

[General Zod]

Yeah. Because there's totally no difference between somebody taking a job he doesn't need. At all. And somebody taking a job he does need, albeit maybe not quite as badly as the next guy.

Then it should be trivial for you to actually explain the difference as to why one is somehow harmful while the other is not. Don't just state it as fact and pretend I'm as dumb as you are.

[mr friendly guy]

So hypothetically lets have two people A & B compete for a job. Both are unemployed (moving between jobs). A and B have the same living expenses (including dependents), but A had a better paying previous job, so A has a higher amount of savings. By Zod's scenario A is better off than B. However if we award the job to B on the grounds of "need", the reverse happens. A suddenly becomes worse off than B, in other words we still have the same problem of one person financially needing the job. A situation the OP tried to prevent.

However if A had a big inheritance such that his need is zero, then the above problem no longer applies if we discriminate in favour of B. Note that this is based on a hypothetical where the employer can magically tell the extent of your need.

So I don't see how you can get from Kanastrous's scenario to Zod's scenario. That being said if I suddenly won the lottery and had sufficient money to live comfortably off my savings, I would still work because

1. There is another moral issue of contributing to society - I can't imagine myself being a rich dude who doesn't contribute, eg Paris Hilton
2. To keep my mind sharp
3. There is a shortage in my field so Kanastrous scenario doesn't apply

[Junghalli]

I suspect that people who work even though they have all the money they need probably often do so because the work is something they genuinely enjoy, so we're talking about taking pleasure and purpose from them here. Personally if I was rich but banned from writing under logic like this I'd be pretty miserable, and would seriously contemplate something like giving most of money away until I was poor enough to be allowed to work again (I dunno, maybe that's a benefit - then again maybe I'd have been able to ultimately accomplish more good making more money and investing it in worthy fields). This is just one factor of course but I think it should be considered.

It also seems to assume that the field in question is a zero-sum game where there's a fixed finite amount of work to be done and money to be made and not participating automatically frees up space for somebody else, and I'm not sure how widely applicable that assumption actually is. Going back to my writing example for the moment, yeah from one perspective books are in competition for market share and shelf space, but more books also means more options for the customer and I like to think enriches the culture, and frankly I think it'd be a tragedy if, say, a rich guy who writes like Alastair Reynolds backed out of the market to make space for a poor guy who writes generic forgettable infodump-heavy schlock. It's a lot more complicated than freeing up shelf space for somebody who needs the money more = everybody better off except you.

[Kyler]

My boss has enough money that he easily could never work another day in his life. Work at the bank stresses him and drives him crazy sometimes but he loves working with people. He takes plenty of time of to enjoy himself but he always comes back, I don't ever expect to see him completely retire because if it isn't interacting with the staff it is the ability to interact with the customers that makes him happy. So I think just depends on the person.

If I personally had the funds where I wouldn't not ever have to work again, I could not do it. When I graduated college and spent 2 months unemployed I about drove myself crazy. Since I was 14 I had always been either in school or had a job or doing both. I can only spend so much time watching TV, exercising, or playing games. Even vacations longer than two weeks I start getting bored. If I had the money I would probably go back to school get my doctorate in History & than teach part time and do a lot of volunteering.

[aerius]

My personal thought is that once you're pretty much set for life it's time to step aside and do something else unless you are truly indispensable. Chances are there's someone who can do your job just as well as you can and who needs the money a lot more than you do, if you know that this is the case the right thing to do would be to let him replace you and then find something else to do with your time. Start your own business, do some charity & volunteer work, turn one of your hobbies into a job, get it on with your harem, whatever floats your boat.